Market summary

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and open-world, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real behavior: totals refresh during the session while per-market figures lag to the last archived session, and all values are in rial. It doesn't discuss failure modes or per-call cost, keeping it under a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the one-line summary, then usage, then freshness caveats, then a short glossary of `markets` and `bond_indices`. Dense but every clause carries information; the parenthetical Persian board names are justified since they map to returned keys.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating exactly what is returned, defining the `markets` boards and `bond_indices` families, and stating units and freshness semantics. An agent can interpret every part of the response without further lookups.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single `top` parameter is fully documented with range and default. The description only echoes it via 'top movers' without adding format or interaction detail, so the schema does the heavy lifting – baseline 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb ('Summarise') plus resource ('the Fara Bourse session') and an explicit inventory of contents: index, bond indices, total turnover, and per-market value traded with top movers. An agent knows exactly what it gets, though the closest sibling (ifb_market_watch) is never named or distinguished.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Use it for 'how is the market today'" gives a clear triggering context, and the note about totals refreshing intraday versus per-market figures coming from the daily archive tells the caller when the data is current. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives are given, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.